Oldham East & Saddleworth (UK) by-election | World Elections Oldham East & Saddleworth (UK) by-election Posted by glhermine Map of Oldham East and Saddleworth The first by-election of the British Parliament since the May 2010 general election took place yesterday, January 13, in Oldham East and Saddleworth. This by-election came in somewhat unique circumstances, after an election court voided the result of the original vote in May 2010 after LibDem candidate Elwyn Watkins, who lost by 103 votes in May, petitioned for the result to be voided based on the nasty campaigning between former Labour MP Phil Woolas and Elwyn Watkins back in May. Attacks on Watkins by Woolas apparently breached the terms of the Representation of the People Act 1983 by making false statements about his personal character. Woolas, known not only for his controversial statements on Islam, also has a long history of making contests very nasty since 1995.

Oldham East and Saddleworth, which basically covers the eastern part of the largely working-class town of Oldham in addition to the middle-class commuter town of Saddleworth was created in 1997. Prior to that, most of it had been in Littleborough & Saddleworth, a traditionally Conservative seat where the Liberals, not Labour, were the main rivals. The area’s history of nasty contests began with the 1995 election in the old Littleborough & Saddleworth, held at the peak of John Major’s unpopularity. The Tories’ vote collapsed by 21 points, to the benefit of the LibDems’ Chris Davies, who gained the seat with a 4.7% majority over Labour’s Phil Woolas. The by-election campaign was particularly nasty, with Woolas accusing Davis of being “high on tax and soft on drugs”. The inclusion of more working-class parts of the old Oldham Central & Royton were unfavourable to Davies, who lost to Woolas by a 6% margin in the 1997 election in the new seat.

Woolas’ majority reached 8% in 2005, but the seat has never been particularly safe for Labour, unlike Oldham West and Royton. In 2010, Woolas, who experimented with some particularly nasty methods again, held on by a hair against LibDem opponent Elwyn Watkins. The Conservatives, which lack a good organization and local government base in the constituency, recovered from their 1995 drubbing only in 2010, when Kashif Ali managed to increase the Tory vote by 8.7% to win 26.4%. The BNP, which had won 11% here in 2001 in the aftermath of race riots, won 5.7% in 2010. There had been rumours that BNP leader Nick Griffin might stand in the by-election, but did not in the end. The BNP’s organization in the area collapsed after their 2001 boom, and the party has been going through internal feuds since their disappointing 2010 showing.

Aside from the unique circumstances of this election, and the unique fact that the LibDems were the ones with the power to move the writ for the by-election (instead of the incumbent party, as is usually the case); this by-election was all the more interesting because it is the first one since the formation of the ConDem coalition in May. Both parties stood candidates after all, but all eyes were on the LibDem vote. Their vote here is probably largely centre-right, being concentrated in the middle-class areas of the seat such as Saddleworth, of a type which might be amenable to voting Tory in other, more “traditional” constituencies. Yet, polls have been showing that the LibDems have suffered a lot from going into coalition with Cameron’s Tories and that they were leaking lots of vote from their left to Labour.

The results of the by-election provide an interesting look at the LibDem’s vote: Debbie Abrahams (Labour) 42.14% (+10.27%) Elwyn Watkins (Liberal Democrat) 31.95% (+0.32%) Kashif Ali (Conservative) 12.83% (-13.62%) Paul Nuttall (UKIP) 5.81% (+1.95%) Derek Adams (BNP) 4.47% (-1.25%) Peter Allen (Green) 1.52% The Flying Brick (Monster Raving Loony Party) 0.42% Stephen Morris (English Democrats) 0.41% Loz Kaye (Pirate Party) 0.27% David Bishop (Bus-Pass Elvis Party) 0.19% Labour holds the seat with a majority of 10.2%, which means a majority and a popular vote share higher than 2005 and 1997 (the Labour majority in 2005 was actually higher than that of 1997, which is not all that mind-boggling given

 that Labour was on the offensive against a non-Tory incumbent in 1997).

Its vote share is up 10.3%, a figure similar to its vote increase back in the 1995 by-election. Yet, the LibDem vote is also marginally up. The headline figures thus hide something. The Liberal Democrats picked up tactical votes from the Tories who voted LibDem to throw Labour out. This resulted in the Conservative vote collapsing to an all-time low, lower than even 1997. The Liberal Democrats picking up votes from their right was at the same neutralized by what was probably a pretty important leak of votes from its left to Labour. Labour’s vote, after all, went up quite dramatically and it can really only be at the expense of the LibDems. Turnout was 48%, which is good for a winter by-election, and this definitely helped Labour. The LibDems moving the writ for an election in early January was deliberate to minimize Labour turnout, but a Labour GOTV campaign proved quite effective. Paul Nuttall, a UKIP MEP, won a good result – polling ahead of the BNP here of all places, and likely picked up a few Tory votes.

The BNP might have suffered from its internal divisions, a higher than expected turnout or its inexistent local organization in Oldham. Extrapolating the world from a by-election is always a dreadfully bad idea, but doing so from the first by-election in a Parliament is even worse. Yet, the results of the by-election here are unambiguously favourable to Labour. On balance, they are unfavourable to the Liberal Democrats given that they benefited from Tory tactical voting which compensated for a big leakage to Labour. In other constituencies, where the LibDems don’t have a strong base and are on the long-shot offensive from third or distant second, they will not benefit from such tactical voting. In fact, they’ll suffer from it. The image is bleak for the Tories, but I wouldn’t take too much out from this by-election. A by-election in a seat where contests are usually Labour vs. Conservative with the LibDems a non-threatening third would perhaps be more interesting and more informative.

UKPollingReport Election Guide 2010 » Oldham East and Saddleworth June 18th, 2011 at 10:57 pm A Cairns Yes this was a relatively decent LD performance as the LDs collapsed to third in Rochdale although they were in local disarray there. richard Hasn’t the old Littleborough & Saddleworth constituency been somewhat recreated? If so it makes Cameron’s betrayal of the Conservatives at the byelection even more unforgivable. September 17th, 2011 at 2:53 pm Pete Whitehead No it hasn’t its been even more broken up. Only the Saddleworth wards and Lees remain in this seat (which becomes Oldham and Saddleworth and takes parts of Oldham West). Crompton and Shaw go to Rochdale South which also includes Milnrow while Littleborough and Wardle are in Rochdale North September 17th, 2011 at 4:57 pm apollocyclops36 The female MP elected in the by-election last year seems to be very low profile. I have not heard anything of her or seen her since.

December 21st, 2011 at 6:22 pm Shaun Bennett Not something I fear we can hope for in the case of Harriet Harperson’s ‘mini me’ elected last week at Feltham and Heston. The best Labour MPs are always the quiet ones 🙂 December 22nd, 2011 at 8:11 am Barnaby Marder You are somewhat offensive at times Shaun and I don’t see why you insist on descending into petty vituperation on this site whose purpose isn’t supposed to be a club for right-wing chaps to share their prejudices. Some of us here don’t share them. Just stick to the site’s aims which you clearly are capable of doing very well when you choose to. For the record, I do know Seema, she does have a mind of her own and certainly not that of Harriet Harman. I see her as being somewhat to the Right of Harman and rather more New Labourish in her politics. In general, it is silly to express a wish for an elected politician not to do the job they are elected to do as you appear to imply Shaun.

I do not appear here to urge people to man barricades or to go on strike, or in general to further the left-wing causes I believe it. I therefore can’t understand why people on the Right seem to think it’s OK to campaign or make nasty, snide remarks. I don’t fulminate against Phil Davies, Peter Bone etc., and would appreciate it if people, while making it clear enough where their sympathies lie, refrain from ill-informed comments about individual politicians of the type we’ve just seen. December 22nd, 2011 at 9:23 am Barnaby Marder I should also add that I tend to get equally irritated when some such as Tim Jones add gratuitous comments about Tory right-wingers of whom they disapprove. What the views of MPs are on a spectrum ranging from John McDonnell to John Hayes doesn’t matter on a polling site, unless they have a clear link to psephology. I hope contributors will try & adhere to this site’s policy, it isn’t fair to expect Anthony to chop things all the time.

December 22nd, 2011 at 10:17 am Barnaby Marder In my personal opinion, yes he is. But there’s a time and, more to the point, a place for having a go at politicians we dislike. And this place isn’t it. I have at times been insulting about certain LD politicians whom I abhor (there aren’t that many I don’t – it’s just a question of what degree of abhorral!). I undertake not to be drawn into such comments in the future & hope others will do the same. December 22nd, 2011 at 11:01 am Tory We all have our affiliations and it is natural that they permeate some of what we write. Nevertheless, I think that the site works best when we stick as closely as possible to psephology. I like to think of this as a collaborative endeavour. As such, I have always welcomed Barnaby’s contributions, especially on the politics of London, with which I had notpreviously been familiar. December 22nd, 2011 at 11:05 am Shaun Bennett I’m joking of course.

Certainly I’m surprised by Barnaby’s somewhat humourless reply. You’re usually so agreeable Barnaby. I suppose having a personal interest in Seema’s case has caused you to lose your sense of humour. If you think what I said was offensive, then I would urge you never to go into politics, as you will be slaughtered! You would however have done your case more good had you not then gone on to declare Peter Bone a valid target. One rule for one… This place is not a right wing club by any means, but some on here seem to want to turn it into a sterile debate about facts, figures and hypothetical situations that takes no account of MPs personalities. And others want to abuse the moderation rules so that comments against the left are struck off whilst comments against rightwingers such as Peter Bone are deemed ‘fair comment’. apollocyclops36 H.Hemmelig, The only problem with the minimum wage is there are 8 million people of working age on state benifits (Therefore likely to have a lower disposable income than if they were in work at lower than the minimum wage). My point being what are these peoples purpose in life?

There will be no ladder from low benefits to even minimum wage jobs if they have been out of work any length of time. I can understand the public sector, the trade unions and Labour party liking the minimum wage but those who are not employed in the public sector, where they have to compete for work with other countries maybe being put out of work or prevented from getting back into work because of this measure. Maybe one way of getting the long term unemployed back to work is by abolishing entitlement to minimum wage as minimum pay for the first year? I will also not tolerate any leftwing people on here saying it is wrong what I am saying because I have more exprience of this issue than I care to talk about. These lefty romantics don’t care that peoples role in life is taken away because of their attachment to the minimum wage. The poor are not assisted by Labour but held back IMO. December 22nd, 2011 at 1:06 pm Shaun Bennett I would be very surprised H.Hemmlig. Even if there was any pressure from backbenchers, I doubt the leadership would accomodate it.

I very much take the view that the minimum wage was a risk when it was introduced but that now it is in place, it is impossible to remove. Unless there were very very clear economic evidence that it was damaging (which there isn’t) then the political fall out of abolishing it would be simply too great for those that did it. This is another reason I’m surprised Cameron was so enthusiastic to be seen as the Prime Minister that wants to reduce working peoples rights and conditions at work. Given all we hear about his desire to ‘detoxify’ the party and given his own background from the privileged elite, it seems to me he is playing into Labour’s hands by seeking to hit peoples working conditions. But hey, I suppose he doesn’t mind retoxifying the brand so long as its one of his own pet projects? I’m surprised by what has been said for another reason however; given the debate on the Cannock Chase thread in which we are told that what MPs got up to before they were elected is irrelevant (at least it seems in the case of Mr Balls) I’m surprised some of those same people take a different line when it comes to Mr Bone.

December 22nd, 2011 at 1:08 pm Joe I think many people would think EB’s nazi dressing up wasnt acceptable at all. 21 years old is not a child December 22nd, 2011 at 1:28 pm Barnaby Marderleft Anyone who knows me personally would tell you that I am anything but humourless. I am a joketeller & occasional impersonator (I do the Rev Ian Paisley, Tony Blair – well, sort of – ,Harold Wilson, Gerry Adams and, from our pasts, Eddie Waring pretty well), and enjoy little more than a joke at the expense of my own ethnic group, the Jewish people. I just feel that too many insults are thrown around, or needless comments about how allegedly left-wing or right-wing so-and-so is, which add nothing to our analysis of how a particular constituency, London or the country as a whole will actually vote or has voted. I did say Shaun, I thought pretty clearly, that while I personally find, for example, Peter Bone’s politics pretty repulsive, I prefer to use other forums (fora?) to make my views known.

I think it’s fair enough for others who, for example, think that Harriet Harman is a dangerous manhater & feminist to refrain from needless insults of her or those who are perceived to be in some way similar to her. I am not a close friend of Seema Malhotra, though I have known her for some years. I belong very firmly to the Left of the Labour Party and have had no reason to believe that Seema shares many of my views. But I don’t see why she should be described as a mini-me of “Harriet Harperson” (which is becoming a very old & tired joke). She is a successful & intelligent person in her own right & deserves the same respect as any elected politician. Far from being humourless, I enjoy a drink & a joke with activists of other parties (I have to say, mainly the Tories, though there are Greens with whom I get on well) and my very best friend is as resolutely opposed to Labour as I am supportive of that party. However, he lives in a very safe Tory seat so he can’t do too much damage!

December 22nd, 2011 at 1:41 pm Shaun Bennett Well speaking for myself, I don’t particularly care that Ed Balls dressed up as a Nazi. Nobody would suggest he sympathises with Nazism. I just call for consistancy-preferrably that it is ok in certain situations and that people won’t be penalised for it in those situations. Unfortunately at the moment we have a status quo under which it matters for some people but not for others depending on whether anyone can be bothered to take it up as an issue, whether they have an elected office they can resign from and whether it will cause embarrassment to their political party. That is not acceptable. December 22nd, 2011 at 3:37 pm Lancs Observer I hear that a former Tory Cabinet minister from the ’80s has been arrested re a paedophile ring. The late campaigning populist MP, Geoffrey Dickens passed his 5 page dossier to Leon Brittan in 1986, naming an MP, a Judge, a Royal aide and an MI5 agent.

Oldham East & Saddleworth | Derbyshire Green Party Posted on December 24, 2010 by derbyshiregreens | Leave a comment A by-election has been called in the Oldham East and Saddleworth constituency, with polling on 13th January, 2011. Derbyshire Green Party member Peter Allen from Glossop, who stood in the High Peak in May, has been selected to represent the Green Party. The election follows the resignation of the former Labour MP Phil Woolas, who was debarred from Parliament for electoral mal-practice. This contest will be the first electoral test for the coalition Government, and interestingly, both the LibDems and the Tories will be standing. The LibDems were 103 votes short of taking the seat from Labour in May, and under normal circumstances, they would be expected to take the seat comfortably. However, these are not normal circumstances, the LibDems are taking flack from the Tory press, and they are set to reap a bitter harvest over their U-turns on student fees, nuclear power and other issues. The word on the street is that Labour will hold the seat.

Media interest in the campaign will grow considerably in the New Year with the coalition partners competing against each other. The Tories will be keen to out poll the LibDems and they will work hard to get out their vote in the Saddleworth part of the Constituency. If they can do this, it will strengthen the hand of those in the party who want to break the coalition and go for an early poll before the advent of AV. These backwoodsmen will try hard to discredit the idea of coalition government, and as the Telegraph has done, will use any tactic how ever underhand, to convince the electorate that coalition is inherently unstable and delivers weak government. They do not want to share power – ever, they want absolute control to protect their vested interests. This contest will also be seen as an early evaluation of Ed Millibands leadership of Labour and of his attempts to repair the damage done to the Party by Blair’s flirtation with American conservatism. He has yet to establish himself as a leader with a clear profile and agenda, and Labour has much to live down. They will find it difficult to criticise the cuts agenda that they would also have followed.

They can hardly vigorously oppose the rise of student fees that they introduced, and in power, they were very keen to get private companies involved in both education delivery and the NHS. There is also a dark side to the campaign. Oldham was the scene of serious rioting in 2001 and following that, the BNP did particularly well in both Oldham constituencies, polling 11% in Oldham East in the 2001 general election. Since then their vote has fallen back to around 5%, they did save their deposit in May. Since the riots, the causes of which remain controversial, much work has been done in the town to address the issue of segregation within the borough, but still the extreme right consider this to be fertile territory and both the BNP and the National Front have indicated that they will stand. Many in Oldham do not accept that the riots of 2001 were race riots. There is a belief that the national media decided that this was the explanation and sensationalised events, so drawing in extremists from out of the area looking for a fight. People of Oldham are no more racist than in any other part of the country and do not welcome the inference that riots were due to local bigotry.

They will probably not welcome the presence of extremist candidates in the by-election. Greens clearly will work hard to out poll the negative extremists. Our aim is to focus the campaign on the issues that will affect the livelihoods and well-being of all people in the constituency and to offer positive alternatives to the ruinous ConDem policy of cuts. This includes the Green New Deal, a costed programme of investment in Green technology and the public sector to create thousands of sustainable jobs. We go in to the contest as the only party supporting free education at the point of delivery, knowing that it is through education that people can escape poverty and build self-confidence and a sense of self-worth, which the progressive private sector also requires. Greens apply the same principle to the National Health Service, knowing that all people must have access to healthcare according to their needs and not their wealth. We will tell the electorate that the Green Deal is the pathway to creating thousands of new and sustainable jobs, that through a programme of home insulation we can cut energy bills, saving people money and providing work for local businesses.

We will tell the electorate that the climate is changing, that the weather will become more extreme, but by addressing this issue now, we can create sustainable work and businesses now and avoid serious costs in the future. Greens will offer a positive message of hope in the face of the negative petty political point scoring of the other parties. To keep updated with the campaign, visit . If you can help this campaign in any way please contact, campaign@oldhamgreens.org.uk [Mike Shipley 23 December 2010] Share this: BBC - Have Your Say: Oldham East by-election: Your reaction Labour have comfortably won the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election with a majority of more than 3,500. What does this mean for the future of the coalition? The Conservatives' vote fell by more than 7,000 as they came a distant third with a 12.8% share. Labour, with a 42.1% share of the vote, said the result - a boost for party leader Ed Miliband - was a "wake-up call" for the coalition.

Nick Clegg said he was pleased with the Lib Dem performance - their share of the vote was up 0.3% on May's result. Are the results significant? Will this be a "wake-up call" for the coalition? Are the results a boost for Ed Miliband? Thank you for your comments. This debate is now closed. Bookmark with: By-election special: Oldham West and Royton By-election special: Oldham West and Royton by Jackie_South on November 29, 2015 Thursday sees the first Parliamentary by-election of this Parliament and with it the first true electoral test of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. With some electoral symmetry, Oldham was the scene of the first by-election of the previous Parliament, which saw Labour hold on to Oldham East and Saddleworth . Below is the May General Election result for the constituency. It ought to be an easy win for Labour. Michael Meacher’s majority in the seat had never dipped below 20% since its 1997 creation and Meacher took 55% of the vote in May. The next two graphs show the votes for each party and then the percentage vote share for each for the five elections since the constituency was created.

Votes Percentages That is not quite to say that this has always been straight-forward territory for Labour though. Meacher’s first contest in an earlier version of the seat – Oldham West – was in a 1968 by-election. Harold Wilson’s unpopularity at the time saw Meacher lose the seat to the Conservatives on a 17.7% swing. Meacher stood again in the 1970 general election and won with a 5% majority. He was never seriously under threat afterwards. The constituency has had its controversies though. The 1997 boundary changes meant that Oldham West and Royton took in the majority of two former seats, Oldham West and Oldham Central & Royton. This led to a tense face-off between the two MPs – Meacher and Bryan Davies –resolved with the defeat of the latter in the selection process and his subsequent elevation to the Lords. Then racial tensions led to the BNP leader Nick Griffin standing in the constituency in 2001, gaining 16% of the vote. The constituency The constituency covers the western side of the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, excluding the town of Failsworth (which is in the Ashton-under-Lyne constituency).

Its southern boundary roughly follows the M60 whilst the M62 runs a little to its north. The area has had its share of famous MPs: William Cobbett, the Chartist John Fielden and, for a period in which he was both a Conservative and a Liberal, Winston Churchill. There are three distinct parts to the constituency. First: the western part of Oldham itself, including the town centre. These four wards (Coldhurst, Hollinwood, Medlock Vale and Werneth) are strongly Labour and have a significant Asian population, mainly Muslim, that make up over a quarter of the population there. If all of the constituency was like the western part of Oldham, Labour would have no difficulty at all in holding the seat in this election. But it is the other two parts of the seat that may cause more difficulty. Royton, to the north of the constituency, is one of the country’s oldest mill towns – the first powered cotton mill was built there in the eighteenth century – although the last closed a generation ago. Royton was part of a constituency with Heywood until 1983, then the Oldham Central and Royton constituency before the current seat was established in 1997.

Royton is a predominantly white (97%) working-class town. The third town is Chadderton, another former milltown in the west of the constituency that sits along the Rochdale canal. Chadderton joined the industrial revolution much later than Royton or Oldham, waiting until the late nineteenth century. But it did it with gusto – 50 mills were in operation by the outbreak of the First World War. More recently, Chadderton has given the world both David Platt and Professor Brian Cox. Chadderton is actually larger than Royton, with a population of 35,000 to Royton’s 20,000. Understandably, it has been a little irked at not getting recognition in the constituency name. “Irked” is an appropriate term here: the River Irk flows through the town. And its population getting irked might explain why Labour is worried about the forthcoming election: whilst Chadderton is marginally less white than Royton it is where UKIP have done best in the constituency: Labour only beat them by 7% in this year’s local election in Chadderton South ward.

Election prospects As the map below shows, Labour currently holds every council seat in the constituency, unlike the more politically varied Oldham East and Saddleworth next door. So, along with the general election result, this ought to be an easy win for Labour. They have made a smart choice in candidate too in Jim McMahon, the young, dynamic leader of Oldham Council. At the relatively tender-age of 35, he is not only leader of the council but also the Labour leader on the national Local Government Association and a member of the party’s National Executive Committee, and has an OBE. His ward is actually outside the constituency – in Failsworth to the south – but his name recognition should certainly be an asset in the election. The challenge to Labour is clearly from UKIP. They were second in May, albeit Labour’s 34.2% majority would require a swing of a similar size to that 1968 by-election for Labour to lose. But that is slightly less than the 18.5% swing that UKIP gained in last year’s by-election in neighbouring Heywood and Middleton . The candidate in that election, John Bickley, is now running in this by-election.

Bickley was also the candidate in the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election. Of course, the Heywood and Middleton swing was from a low base: UKIP’s vote in 2010 there was 2.6%. Labour’s share of the vote in that 2014 by-election stayed fairly static – it actually increased slightly. What happened is that the votes for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats fell away. If Labour’s May vote share of 55% holds in Oldham West and Royton, UKIP cannot win even if it picks up every vote from the Tories and Lib Dems. The map below translates this May’s council elections against the general election result for the constituency to calculate Labour’s lead over UKIP in each ward in the general election. This shows that Labour will need particularly to get out its votes in its Oldham town heartland, such as those Muslim votes in Werneth and Coldhurst, whilst UKIP will want to try to build its support in Chadderton and Royton.

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have picked candidates that stood in other Greater Manchester seats in May’s general election: James Daly (Bolton North East) and Jane Brophy (Altrincham and Sale West) respectively. The Green candidate, Simeon Hart, stood in Oldham West and Royton in May, although his 839 votes in that contest is unlikely to worry the others much. The Monster Raving Loony Party are going one better than McMahon’s OBE by standing a knight, assuming that Sir Oink A-Lot is a bone fide title. The outcome? My past predictions have not always been accurate , so I am treating this one with caution. Labour have been extremely concerned that they could lose the election to UKIP, but appear to be a little more confident now. Labour have also done surprisingly well in some council by-elections in recent weeks: winning Rochford in Essex this week and coming shockingly close in the Surrey County Council seat of Epsom West. So, I think a fairly narrow Labour win is the most likely outcome. That ought to be bad news for Jeremy Corbyn: this is a safe seat that should not be in question and a tight win will concern many in the party.

But Miliband survived the near loss of Heywood and Middleton next door and so a win of any size is likely to result in a sigh of relief and whilst there will be criticism, it is unlikely to be fatal. A loss to UKIP though is still a possible outcome: next week is likely to see fast-moving news about the Syria vote and this could undermine the Labour vote further in the next few days. Corbyn’s decision to stay away from the by-election this weekend is partly due to him needing to be in London at this critical time, but I guess that McMahon’s team are relieved rather than annoyed by his absence. If UKIP win, the pressure for Corbyn will grow and urstwhile supporters will edge a little further towards the door. Unfavourable polls are one thing, losing Meacher’s seat to the immigrant-phobic hard right quite another. A UKIP victory is likely to be the beginning of te end of Corbyn’s leadership. Jackie_South December 1, 2015 at 9:55 am Thanks Witchfinder. I used the term ‘hard right’ – which could include parts of the Tory Party as well – rather than ‘far right’.

The BNP would be the latter, but as UKIP is to the right of the Tories I think it must be fair to describe them as ‘hard right’. Chris December 3, 2015 at 9:57 pm Is it fair to describe UKIP as “Immigrant phobic” or “Hard Right” both point to smear tactics not real political argument. Wanting the UK to control its own immigration policy is emphatically NOT “Immigrant phobic”, it is just basic common sense. Becoming the standard-bearer of Britain’s progressive majority – Ed Miliband’s Fabian Conference speech | LabourList Becoming the standard-bearer of Britain’s progressive majority – Ed Miliband’s Fabian Conference speech By Ed Miliband / @ed_miliband We’ve just witnessed our first by-election of the Parliament in Oldham East and Saddleworth. It was an unusual by-election not only because – I am proud to say – Labour won, but also because of the behaviour of our opponents and the great churning of votes between the parties. David Cameron became the first prime minister in recent years to campaign in a by-election.

And definitely the first party leader that I can remember to not know the name of his own party’s candidate. Then we saw Nick Clegg vowing to have more public rows with Mr Cameron just to remind people that the Liberal Democrats still have a separate identity. That is an unusual, probably unhealthy, way to conduct any relationship let alone one in a government that is having such a profound impact on people’s lives. I suspect it is a symptom of a having coalition based on political convenience rather than values. But, as I said, it was also unusual because we saw significant transfers of votes from the Liberal Democrats to Labour. From the Conservatives to the Liberal Democrats. And from Conservatives to Labour. Above all, what the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election shows us is that people are deeply uneasy about where this Conservative-led government is taking the country. However our party would be deluding itself if we thought that meant that the next election would fall into our lap. The next election will be as much about us as about them-and our ability to change and become the voice and standard-bearer of Britain’s progressive majority once again. And that’s what I want to talk about today.

Because I believe that from the very founding of the Labour party as the Labour Representation Committee through to the great reforming Labour governments of the second half of the twentieth century and the early years of this, Labour has succeeded when it has seen itself not as a narrow party of sectional interest, but when through a sense of mission, passion and optimism for the future it has become the voice and vehicle for progressive change. We need to be honest over 13 years in government we forfeited the right in too many people’s minds to be the natural standard bearers for this progressive majority in Britain. I want to talk today about the reasons why that happened and about the three ways we need to change and change profoundly if we are to put it right. The first is to understand why our economy has stopped working for people – and how we can again offer a new economic model for Labour and for Britain. In particular, understanding that simply redistributing taxpayers’ money through the welfare state, important though that is, is inadequate and will not build the more just, more sustainable economy. The second is to recognise the way our managerialism took us away from the instincts and values of the broad progressive majority in Britain.

That our communities came to see us as the people who put markets and commerce before the common good. And many citizens came to see us also as the people who did not understand that the state could be intrusive as well as empowering. We must respond to this by breathing new life into our sense of ideological purpose, drawing on what is enduringly good in the Labour tradition, and reaching outside it too. And third we must accept that in how we do our politics we came to be not leaders of a broad, open progressive majority built on a coalition of values, but into a political force that was far less than that. We must respond by putting democratic renewal and a willingness to reach out to others beyond our party at the heart of the way we do our politics. Understanding that Labour must change the way it works and that no one party can claim to have a monopoly of wisdom in today’s politics. That Labour must earn its leadership of Britain’s progressive majority – it is not ours by right. The Context Before turning to my argument, let me set the context. It’s two years since I opened the Fabian New Year Conference of 2009. I remarked then that the Tories had never been more on the ideological defensive in my political lifetime.

The financial crash had demolished the Conservative fallacy that markets always know best and David Cameron was busy discovering that there was such a thing as society. Two years later, we are clearly in a very different place. David Cameron didn’t win the general election last May. But he did end up as Prime Minister and he hasn’t let the absence of a mandate stop him from embarking on the most ideologically dangerous assault on our public services in a generation. These changes will re-shape Britain in as profound a way as Mrs Thatcher re-shaped Britain in the 1980s. I’m sure I speak for everyone here when I say that everywhere I go I see an assault on many of the things I value – from Sure Start to the way in which the trebling of student debt will kick the ladder of opportunity away from a generation of our young people. The combination of this assault on our institutions, the global economic crisis and the formation of the Conservative-led government has marked a period of change which occurs only once in a generation. There have been two other moments in my lifetime when economic upheaval has been followed by a dramatic break in the established pattern of British politics.

The first was the IMF crisis in 1976 and the Winter of Discontent two years later, followed by the defeat of the Callaghan government, the formation of the SDP and eighteen years of Conservative government. The second was Britain’s ejection from the Exchange Rate Mechanism on Black Wednesday, the emergence of New Labour and the election of the first three-term Labour government in our history. In both cases a fundamental shift in the character and direction of our national politics proved to be enduring. Facing Up to Defeat On these two occasions a governing party lost power on the expectation of a quick return to office, and it ended up in the wilderness for a generation. In both cases that was because they didn’t learn the right lessons about the changing economic circumstances, about what their values meant for their time, and the way they did their politics. We cannot afford to sit back and wait for this Conservative-led government to fail. That is why we must seize this moment to understand these lessons and to change if we are to ensure that this is a one-term government. This government is making costly mistakes and will continue to do so. But it is the changes we make to ourselves that will decide whether we avoid the fate that has befallen parties in the past.

That is why “one more heave” just won’t do. A party that slumps below 30% of the popular vote has a responsibility to face up to the scale of its loss. Understanding why we lost touch means learning to see ourselves as the British people see us. We began learning that lesson after 1983, but it took us far too long. I am determined that we will not make the same mistake again. Of course I am proud of the achievements of our last Labour government. The truth is that for a lot of people those achievements are clearer, now that they are under threat from this government. But let’s not mislead ourselves – aspects of our record in government are also the reason we are now in opposition. Parties don’t suffer defeats like the one we suffered last May because of an accumulation of small errors. They do so by making serious mistakes, and that’s why I have said what I have said on issues like Iraq, failing to properly regulate the banks, ignoring concerns about economic security and not doing enough to deliver on the promise of a new politics. We have to show that we have learnt lessons if the British people are to trust us again.

The Progressive Majority So that is the scale of the challenge we face. But if the result of the election showed why we need to change, it also revealed something important about the nature of British politics from which we ought to draw encouragement. Most people cast their votes for parties that talked about the need to make Britain fairer and more equal, that warned against the dangers of cutting the deficit too early and urged a deepening of democratic reform. It’s easy to forget today, but that brief bout of Cleggmania was animated by this progressive hunger for change. So there is a progressive majority in Britain. It’s just that we failed to attract enough of it to Labour’s cause to return a viable progressive government. We will rebuild ourselves as a broad movement by understanding where the centre-ground of British politics truly lies. I want us to become the voice and hope of those who feel squeezed by an economic system that promised to liberate them. I want us to articulate the frustration of people who are fed up with bankers taking vast public subsidies and then rewarding themselves for failure while the rest of the country struggles. I want us to be the party that answers the call for a fairer sharing of the nation’s wealth, strong and responsive public services and a different kind of politics.

Over the coming months, I will be talking in greater detail about how we approach the economic challenges, the challenges of renewing our values and the challenge of renewing our politics. Today I want to set out the direction of that journey. Economic Crisis So let me start with the first change we need – on the economy. The financial crisis shook the world economy, but more specifically it exposed some of the flawed assumptions on which the economic policies of Britain have been based under successive governments. The last election saw a majority crying out for a party and a government which had learned the lessons of the crisis and could offer Britain a new economic future. But we must accept that we failed to win the argument that it was Labour that could offer people a better economy working in their interests. If we are again to offer a vision of hope and change to the majority in Britain it is essential that we learn the right lessons of the crisis. This is the argument that will define this decade and beyond. The implication of much of what the Conservative-led government say is that it was high levels of public borrowing that caused the crisis. That is just not true. In fact, it was the crisis that caused high levels of public borrowing.

The deficit rose from manageable levels of around 2% of national income to above 10% because of the global financial crisis. And when the Tories and the Liberal Democrats are trying to propagate this myth about the past we must not let them get away with it. The reason is not simply because of desire for truth about the past but because they are using it to shape our future. They want to tell people that the only lesson to learn from the crisis is that as long as we simply cut back spending far and fast enough, we will contain the deficit and reach the sunny uplands of economic prosperity. But just as we need to counter their myth about the past, we need to acknowledge what we got wrong. Along with other national governments, we didn’t get banking regulation right. And our economy was too vulnerable to the crisis because we were too reliant on financial services. These are two important lessons of the crisis. But there is a deeper issue about why the crisis happened and what it teaches us about the economy we need to create. Freer markets combined with ‘light touch’ regulation were sold to middle Britain on the basis that they would guarantee economic freedom, rising living standards and a fair reward for the hard working majority.

For the best of reasons, New Labour signed up to this vision precisely because it spoke to the hopes of aspirational voters. Our period in office was marked by notable successes: record levels of employment, a decade of continuous growth until 2008, low inflation, low interest rates and the minimum wage. What is more we used the proceeds of growth to both rebuild public services and tackle poverty. Whereas before 1997, relative poverty had trebled and the public realm had crumbled, we comprehensively changed the direction in which our country was headed. But economic growth and productivity masked a hidden truth: that life in the middle was getting harder not easier. Real wages in the middle may have been rising but they weren’t keeping pace with the rest of the economy. And they were wildly outstripped by the gains made by those at the top. And though Labour did a lot to offset this with tax credits and other forms of public support, we found ourselves swimming against stronger economic currents. The “squeezed middle”, a phrase some people might have thought I would never use again, is not a marketing concept but a reality of life for millions of people as the result of the economy we have.

It speaks to families working hard for long hours, stretching a limited family budget and who found the only way to increase their living standards was to increase their personal debt. The lesson we must draw is that there is a connection between the inequality of a system that distributes wealth unfairly and the economic imbalances of a country that became too reliant on personal debt and financial services. Put these parts of the argument together-about regulation, about the need for a broader industrial base and about inequality – and I come to this conclusion: we can’t build economic efficiency or social justice simply in the way we have tried before. It won’t be enough to rely on a deregulated market economy providing the tax revenues for redistribution. New Labour’s critical insight in the 1990s and 2000s was that we needed to be stewards of a successful market economy to make possible social justice through redistribution. The critical insight of Labour in my generation is that both wealth creation and social justice need to be built into the way our economy works. That’s why I think the living wage, for example, is such a powerful idea. Because I know that tax credits for all the good they do have their limits.

If we can build an economy with more living wage jobs – and well paying jobs – we embed social justice at the heart of the way the market economy is run rather than having to make it an optional extra. This is important for us not just because it is necessary to create social justice but because it reflects the fiscal climate we will face in the coming decade. Why was the last Labour government too slow in the language that we used, after the financial crisis had created a big deficit, to acknowledge what our own plans implied, that there would eventually have to be cuts? Part of the answer is that we hadn’t shown other ways of delivering social justice. So the first part of the way we must change is to show we can build a fair economy, with wealth creation and social justice for all at its heart. Our Values The second part of our challenge is to understand how over 13 years of government we came to seem detached and remote from the instincts and values of families across Britain – families who share our values but saw a party that was out of touch with their daily struggle. For all our achievements, I know what our biggest problem was – it afflicts all governments. We became too technocratic and managerial.

But more than that, we sometimes lost sight of people as individuals, and of the importance of communities. In our use of state power, too often we didn’t take people with us. That is why over time people railed against the target culture, the managerialism of public service reform and overbearing government. At the same time, we seemed in thrall to a vision of the market that seemed to place too little importance on the values, institutions and relationships that people cherish the most. We turned a blind eye to the impact of out of town retail developments and post office branch closures on our high streets. We knew all about the benefits of a flexible and mobile labour force, but we didn’t think enough about its impact on weakening social bonds and squeezing time with our families. So people began to see a government which looked remote from they cared about. They could see a government doing things they either agreed with or disagreed with, but not a political movement that spoke to their values. To change, we will look critically at our traditions and why they have led us to become remote. Among the many strands of the British Labour tradition, two have proved particularly influential. The first was the idea of socialism as a kind of missionary work to be undertaken on behalf of the people.

I’m sorry to give the Fabians a hard time, but this view is most obviously associated with the early Fabians around Sidney and Beatrice Webb. The alternative strand, represented by the co-operative movement and the early trade unions, saw Labour as a grassroots, democratic movement to enable people to lead the most fulfilling lives. As we seek the right traditions to draw on as a political party in the 21st century, it is so important that we understand the appropriate role of each tradition. The Webb Fabian tradition was born of an era where the challenge of the Left was meeting people’s basic needs for health, housing, education and relief of poverty. That need will always remain. But people rightly expect more out of their lives than simply meeting basic needs. The New Labour tradition which embraced dynamic markets is also important for our future and creating wealth. But people don’t just care about the bottom line, there is so much more to life. So the bureaucratic state and the overbearing market will never meet our real ambition as a party, that each citizen can be liberated to have the real freedom to shape their own lives.

To do that, we need to draw on that other tradition based on mutualism, localism and the common bonds of solidarity that captures the essence of our party at its best. The belief in those common bonds means we should also be defenders of the things that people value and which are threatened – sometimes by market, sometimes by government. When we say we care about the closure of a Sure Start, it isn’t just about the supply of a service to individual families. Sure Start is a place where community is built, as families get to know each other and form friendships. The same is true of local libraries. The same is true of ways of life which are deeply ingrained in our country and which we should understand. Just before Christmas, I went with Jon Cruddas to Billingsgate fish market and met a porter there who told me that the best day of his life was when he got his porter’s badge and that there has not been a day since when he has not woken up feeling proud to be doing the job he does. That is why politicians should not shrug and walk away when they hear that traditional ways of life are under threat. We should seek to defend ways of life which give people self-respect.

And a Britain of respect and decency demands obligations from all of us. What offends me most about the outrages in the banks is the sense that some of the bankers apparently feel little obligation to the society and country in which they are located. It isn’t enough to say this is what the market will pay me – societies are built on deeper social obligation. I care about the success of our financial services industry – about the jobs it creates. But today when we you see some of our leading bankers constantly threatening to leave the country, trying to hold the country to ransom and thinking only of themselves, it makes me angry. And that is why it makes me so angry that this government is refusing to act. To be at heart of the progressive mainstream, we also need to draw on values that may not have always been central to our party. One of our tasks is to learn the lessons of the green movement and put sustainability at the heart of what we do. Another is to draw on the traditions of liberty. Progressive politics is not just about meeting economic and social needs. Those are only ever a means to human flourishing and freedom. Part of that is about upholding the liberty of the person.

Nobody should pretend there aren’t important and difficult choices to be made about how to uphold security and protect liberty. But we didn’t take the need to uphold liberty seriously enough. In recent months, we have shown with our willingness to support the reduction of 28 day detention to 14 days, we are determined to take liberty seriously as part of our governing philosophy. The Way We Do Politics So we must renew our approach to the economy, and renew our values. But thirdly, we also have to reform our approach to politics. Not since the era of the rotten borough has our political system faced such a grave crisis of legitimacy as the one it now faces. From declining turnout and shrinking electoral rolls to anger over expenses and broken promises on tuition fees, people have lost trust in politics and its ability to offer solutions to the problems they face. That crisis is a matter of national urgency. It’s a crisis of unreformed institutions, broken promises, remote political parties and a knee-jerk adversarial political culture. Part of the problem has been the failure of all parties to honour repeated promises to usher in a new politics. Of course that involves reforming our political institutions.

Our own credibility was undermined by our failure to honour a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on voting reform and the stalling of democratic reform of the House of Lords. We will take every opportunity to reform the way our political system works. That is the reason I will be campaigning in favour of the Alternative Vote in the referendum. I will keep my promise. But this audience knows that very few people on the doorstop ask about the Alternative Vote or reform of the House of Lords. They think the reason politics is discredited is because politicians always break their promises. The reality is that that the broken promises of this government do not just damage their own reputations, but that of all politicians. That is why we have to be careful not to over-promise, either in terms of language or in terms of policy. But that is just part of the story of how we renew our politics. Think back to our early days as a political party. Of course, we fought elections but we did a lot more than that. We were part of the fabric of community life through our wider movement: not just the trade unions, but the co-operative movement. Nostalgia for times past is not an answer to the challenges of the future.

But the challenge to us all is to be a genuine movement for change appropriate to our time up and down the country. That is why as part of our party reform, we want to learn the lessons of organisations like London Citizens to become a genuine community organising movement. The only way we rebuild the case for politics is from the ground up. The campaign for the local library, the local zebra crossing, the improvement of a school, must be our campaign. And not just campaigns for the state to do things, but campaigns that achieve things themselves. There is one other thing we need to change in our politics. No party has a monopoly of wisdom or virtue, and it is foolish to pretend that they do. The decision of the Liberal Democrats to join a Conservative-led government was a tragic mistake, and I hope they come to see that in time. Forgive me if I decline to join those who are gloating at the expense of the Liberal Democrats. Because their mistake means they are part of a government attempting to shift politics to the Right. I am certainly pleased that many Liberal Democrats now see Labour as the main progressive hope in British politics. Thousands of them have joined us since the election.

I want them to find a welcome home in our party – not just making up the numbers, but contributing actively to the strengthening of our values and the renewal of our policies. But equally there are many Liberal Democrats who have decided to stay and fight for the progressive soul of their party. Most of them do not want to see their progressive tradition sacrificed for personal ambition. I respect their choice too and I understand how painful it must be to watch what is happening to their party. We do not doubt that they hold sincere views and we will co-operate, where we can in Parliament and outside, with those that want to fight the direction of this government. It is our duty to work with progressives everywhere. Conclusion So this is the way we need to seize the mantle of progressive politics and shape the economic, ideological and political landscape of the future. Building a fair economy. Rooting our values in traditions and ideas that go beyond the bureaucratic state and the overbearing market And a different kind of politics The prize is not simply a Labour government but more than that. It is about a political movement that in every community up and down this country can shape the politics of the future. Make our values and our ideas the commonsense of our age.

And shape a country and a world based on our ideals. To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail [email protected]

Question: The first by-election of this Parliament was in January 2011 in …….. East and Saddleworth. Which town completes the name of the constituency?
Answer: Oldham